£200 for pregant women to "eat well". Are they are having another laugh?

loz · 09-09-2007, 6:12 PM

The government is surely having another laugh... at our expense

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6984122.stm

Quote:

Pregnant women will get about £200 paid into their bank account to spend on healthy food under a government initiative, the BBC has learned.
From April 2009, expectant mothers in England would receive a one-off payment from their 29th week of pregnancy to encourage them to eat well

Sorry, but

When did eating well cost more?
Do they really think the money will go on food?
is it any wonder our tax bill is so high?

God knows the alternatives are dire, but please, someone get rid of this government...

**Steven** · 09-09-2007, 6:25 PM

I remember a couple years ago when I told the forum I got £30 per week EMA for going sixth form which I was going to do anyway no one batted an eyelid

Time change huh?

Paulie-W · 09-09-2007, 6:25 PM

They`d be better off giving out a compulsary voucher, that all major retailers have to abile by. £200 to a chavette will just go on fags and alco pop

**Dave** · 09-09-2007, 6:59 PM

It's not for every pregnant woman, just those on very low income or no income.

Rob100 · 09-09-2007, 7:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave W

It's not for every pregnant woman, just those on very low income or no income.

That's not what they were saying on the BBC news this morning. Either way it's a crazy idea. There was a woman (not sure who she was) on the news who was suggesting that they should have to attend a series of courses (on eating etc) to get the cash or better still vouchers!!

Uridium · 09-09-2007, 7:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loz

The government is surely having another laugh... at our expense

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6984122.stm

Sorry, but

When did eating well cost more?
Do they really think the money will go on food?
is it any wonder our tax bill is so high?

God knows the alternatives are dire, but please, someone get rid of this government...

1. Eating well does generally cost more; fresh fruit, Fresh Veg and real meat does cost more than eating dubious processed rubbish from the freezer shops.

2. Probably not
3. People keep voting for the same faces

loz · 09-09-2007, 7:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave W

It's not for every pregnant woman, just those on very low income or no income.

It doesn't state that in the bbc report I linked to, nor in a couple of the news items that I heard today either.

Moreover, it actually says in the bbc report

Quote:

The Health in Pregnancy Grant would not be means-tested. To get the payment, however, a woman would have to meet with a health professional for tips on pregnancy health and welfare advice.

**Dave** · 09-09-2007, 7:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob100

That's not what they were saying on the BBC news this morning. Either way it's a crazy idea. There was a woman (not sure who she was) on the news who was suggesting that they should have to attend a series of courses (on eating etc) to get the cash or better still vouchers!!

I heard it was only for low income mothers, much the same as the 500 quid they get when the baby is born.

Agree with the voucher thing though.

I think I might just give up work, seems like I'd be better on the gravy train.

**Dave** · 09-09-2007, 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loz

It doesn't state that in the bbc report I linked to, nor in a couple of the news items that I heard today either.

Moreover, it actually says in the bbc report

Cheers loz, seems I have my info mucked up again.

loz · 09-09-2007, 7:09 PM

On the grounds of sexual equality, surely fathers-to-be should get the same payment

sdb123 · 09-09-2007, 7:11 PM

Maybe they should give them vouchers for supermarkets for use on healthy food only?!

Pat_C · 09-09-2007, 7:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob100

That's not what they were saying on the BBC news this morning.

I didn't see anything about this on the BBC's McCann 24 channel today

**Dave** · 09-09-2007, 7:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loz

On the grounds of sexual equality, surely fathers-to-be should get the same payment

I'm thinking of suing my wife for emotional distress, bleeding hormones.

She's eating well enough anyway, I cook everything cos I can stay out of the way in the kitchen.

*avinitski* · 09-09-2007, 7:42 PM

im speechless.

bouncer · 10-09-2007, 9:15 AM

Thats racist!

Only mothers!?

I noticed it said England... -.-

Pat_C · 10-09-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bouncer

Only mothers!?

I noticed it said England... -.-

No, it will apply to men as well - provided they are pregnant. And I assume it meant England and Wales.

Next we will pay children to turn up at school, with an additional 'no weapons' bonus.

BrianC · 10-09-2007, 11:35 AM

Good idea but poorly executed as usual.

I'd be all for this if it was for low income mothers and could only be spent on on heathly food. It should also be for the duration of the pregnancy and the normal breastfeeding period afterwards. In fact I think it should be extended to cover all children in all low income families.

Pat_C · 10-09-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianC

In fact I think it should be extended to cover all children in all low income families.

If it was vouchers for low income families that could only be spent on fresh vegetables etc. then I would agree. But then you get into the 'nanny state' argument, and frothing of the mouth from civil liberties groups.

TeenSpirit · 10-09-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loz

The government is surely having another laugh... at our expense

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6984122.stm

Sorry, but

When did eating well cost more?
Do they really think the money will go on food?
is it any wonder our tax bill is so high?

God knows the alternatives are dire, but please, someone get rid of this government...

Whatever next !! Like I've said before, 'Robin Hood' society

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uridium

1. Eating well does generally cost more; fresh fruit, Fresh Veg and real meat does cost more than eating dubious processed rubbish from the freezer shops.

Do you reckon ? I think it costs way more to buy 'ready meals' from supermarkets than cook your own food up from scratch - tinned fruit and veg is far more expensive for volume than fresh.

Agreed the money would probably be wasted on other things anyway - a voucher scheme would be a better option.

It is saying though, that lower income families don't eat correctly and just buy junk food, well this could be said of any household, why should the lower income families get the money (again) - we work hard, earn good money and get nothing off the Government...

pjclark1 · 10-09-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsSigns

we work hard, earn good money and get nothing off the Government...

This is your mistake! (and your just reward)

At 7 months pregnant, I think they deserve a little reward for all their hard work.
I am just happy that the government will have a little less money left to spend on cruise missiles and killing foreigners.

BrianC · 10-09-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat_C

If it was vouchers for low income families that could only be spent on fresh vegetables etc. then I would agree. But then you get into the 'nanny state' argument, and frothing of the mouth from civil liberties groups.

It would have to be vouchers for me, I wouldn't trust anybody to spend it all on healthy food.

@ MrsSigns - I see this as cheaper than sorting out troubled kids later on as I'm a big believer in diet and its effect on behaviour. A hundred a month feeding two kids has to be better than thousands spent on ASBOs and jail time.

Quite where you'd set the bar for low income families I don't know, may be scale it along with working tax credit with those on full benefits getting the lot anyway.

**IronGiant** · 10-09-2007, 1:32 PM

So is it likely to be an extension of the Healthy Start Scheme?

http://www.healthystart.nhs.uk/index.asp

Dave

Jenn · 10-09-2007, 2:16 PM

From the 29th week of pregnancy? Oh great, it must have been an MP who thought about that one considering it's the 1st trimester that's the most important in the development of the baby.
At 29 weeks you're 2 third of the way there !!

It's nice to want to help women to eat healthy while pregnant but it's impossible to check whether they do it or not and to be honest people haven't had "incentives" for that so far so why now?

drskhaled · 10-09-2007, 4:25 PM

These things arent done randomly tho it may appear so. the birthweight of a baby has a direct influence on its future health. Low birthweight babys are at higher risk of developing diabetes and heart disease both of which will cost the taxpayer enourmous sums of money.

My memory is hazy but IIRC its something described as a thrifty phenotype, basically relative starvation in utero (poor nutrition) gears up the fetus for a life of poverty (hence thrifty phenotype). So instead when its born into a world of fast food and laziness the child is at high risk of diabetes etc. A well fed fetus on the other hand is more likley to resist diabetes as it has been primed in the womb to live in a world of plenty. This is the theory why low birthweight kids are at more risk of those diseases. Its also the same reason why Asians and others from developing countries are at higher risk of same diseases.

Remember this is the theory behind it, and there are some holes in it, but it makes sense to me. but the fact is children born into deprived backgrounds are much more likely to be born underweight and prematurely both of which will cost us much more than a measly 200 bucks.

The arguments that the 200 quid wont be spent on food is absolutely valid mind, i dont see a problem with vouchers for fresh fruit and veg if you ask me.

TeenSpirit · 10-09-2007, 4:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianC

...
@ MrsSigns - I see this as cheaper than sorting out troubled kids later on as I'm a big believer in diet and its effect on behaviour. A hundred a month feeding two kids has to be better than thousands spent on ASBOs and jail time...

I too believe in diet and its effect on behaviour, but this is not the issue here

The money is for the 'pregnant' lady not the children when born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjclark1

This is your mistake! (and your just reward)

At 7 months pregnant, I think they deserve a little reward for all their hard work.

I am 8 1/2 months pregnant and am in a stable marriage with a good income coming into the household - if it were 2009 and this money suggestion passed, would I get any of it ?? No ! So why is the health of low income mothers to be more important than the health of mothers to be like myself... and why do they deserve any more than I would

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjclark1

I am just happy that the government will have a little less money left to spend on cruise missiles and killing foreigners.

Don't think it works like that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn

From the 29th week of pregnancy? Oh great, it must have been an MP who thought about that one considering it's the 1st trimester that's the most important in the development of the baby.
At 29 weeks you're 2 third of the way there !!

It's nice to want to help women to eat healthy while pregnant but it's impossible to check whether they do it or not and to be honest people haven't had "incentives" for that so far so why now?

Nice one Jen - very good point

loz · 10-09-2007, 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjclark1

I am just happy that the government will have a little less money left to spend on cruise missiles and killing foreigners.

Except the usual outcome is that they raise taxes so they can afford both

**Dave** · 10-09-2007, 4:31 PM

It's pointless giving it my wife anyway, regardless of how much we earn.

She went shopping on Saturday and returned with, 4 tins of ravioli, 2 multipacks of pickled onion monster munch and 2 jars of pickled beetroot.

loz · 10-09-2007, 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsSigns

II am 8 1/2 months pregnant and am in a stable marriage with a good income coming into the household - if it were 2009 and this money suggestion passed, would I get any of it ?? No ! So why is the health of low income mothers to be more important than the health of mothers to be like myself... and why do they deserve any more than I would

Actually, the BBC report I linked to in the OP does state that it will not be means tested.

TeenSpirit · 10-09-2007, 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drskhaled

These things arent done randomly tho it may appear so. the birthweight of a baby has a direct influence on its future health. Low birthweight babys are at higher risk of developing diabetes and heart disease both of which will cost the taxpayer enourmous sums of money.

Not from my experience of friends and family - for example, I had a friend here today, whose baby was very low birth weight and the doctors told the mother that baby would suffer with illness etc. through her life - the baby is now 16 and not under weight and lives a perfectly healthy life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drskhaled

My memory is hazy but IIRC its something described as a thrifty phenotype, basically relative starvation in utero (poor nutrition) gears up the fetus for a life of poverty (hence thrifty phenotype). So instead when its born into a world of fast food and laziness the child is at high risk of diabetes etc. A well fed fetus on the other hand is more likley to resist diabetes as it has been primed in the womb to live in a world of plenty. This is the theory why low birthweight kids are at more risk of those diseases. Its also the same reason why Asians and others from developing countries are at higher risk of same diseases.

Remember this is the theory behind it, and there are some holes in it, but it makes sense to me. but the fact is children born into deprived backgrounds are much more likely to be born underweight and prematurely both of which will cost us much more than a measly 200 bucks...

So you are asumming that 'low income' mothers have a 'deprived background' for their children

I don't think any assumptions can be made by the Government like this - it can be the case where 'low income' mothers who don't work could feed their children far healthier and have time to cook proper meals than working parents who might just bring their children up on junk food and don't have the time to cook proper meals ...

*avinitski* · 10-09-2007, 6:35 PM

voucher system would not work, swap you £20 fruit & veg voucher for a gramme? no stopping people doing that.